The Antichristian Phenomenon

Slightly lost, I arrived at Chapmans Torg and was expecting some gathering or sign to point the way as to where to go. I knew the address, but there was nothing. Eventually I figured out that the entrance in fact was a vegetarian/vegan restaurant, and I saw some of my classmates already sitting inside. We were welcomed by our “lecturer”, whose name I never caught, but he was a pretty short, very considerate Indian man. He reminded me much of my Russian friend in personality and manners. There was a room further inside the restaurant where he had placed some cushions on the floor so we could all sit down. He started by introducing the Hare Krishna movement and the cosmology revolving it. Although I study Social Anthropology as my main field, I know shamefully little about Hinduism and Hare Krishna. For me Hare Krishna is a name only, and I had a loose idea of there being some scandals where group members were involved, but I didn’t know what it was, and I still don’t, and no one ever bothered to ask. Suffice to say, I arrived with a very open mind, although slightly disappointed over that I had mixed up the dates and thought we were originally supposed to visit the local Scientology church instead of Hare Krishna. In a very typical manner, I started to lead the “conversation” with a few others. It turned out to be one of the best spent two hours ever in my life actually, and it made me realize why I am educating myself in the field I am actually doing, and that I would have no problem spending days, months, maybe even years with people so different to me and just learn their ways of living. I have the outmost respect of our “lecturer” that he took the time to answer our questions and explain the movement for free I should add, and to me he seemed like a pretty simple man very satisfied with his life and his religious beliefs. He wasn’t one of the most faithful, as he was just a normal member of the movement, and thus didn’t follow many of the more extreme ascetic values such as fasting, which he said he had tried once but it was too hard for him or refraining from having sex, and I think that presentation worked very well. He could explain the religion from a point of view everyone could understand, and he was really good at explaining, often using different kind of metaphors to get a point across.
Being the person that I am, of course I questioned him many, many times. I sure hope he didn’t find me offensive, and I very much appreciated the time he took with me, especially considering that I know so little about Hare Krishna. Having to attend my grandfather’s funeral last week made me miss out the presentation of the group unfortunately, but now in retrospect it might actually have been the better choice. In Social Anthropology, one of the biggest fears is to trying to fit certain ideas or groups of people into a box either because of lack of understanding or prejudice. I felt this wasn’t the case today, and I really see it as one of the first examples I had at “working in the field”. More or less all studies in Social Anthropology today are done in the forms of fieldwork studies. Other types of studies are possible but generally frowned upon because of the lack of an emic (inside) perspective. Having little to no foreknowledge thus allowed me to be there with without prejudice, and I got to take part of how our “lecturer” viewed the Hare Krishna movement and his journey from warm India to cold Sweden. In a way, having him telling about his religious beliefs and the religion he practices was some kind of lifestory. He grew up in middleclass India, and professed to be some kind of atheist, studying as an engineer at some Indian university. (At this point I also realize how bad it was of me to not take any notes when he was talking! I thought he would actually lecture in the actual sense, so I didn’t think I would need any… Hence the citation marks.) One of his roommates from the UK or Australia had left some tapes (this was in the 80s) and he (our “lecturer”) decided to give them some listens before tossing them away, and it turns out they are records of some Hare Krishna lectures. The tapes intrigued him, and I can recognize my own curiosity in his own, now that I am sitting home at my computer writing down my two hour encounter, because regardless of scandals and mystery, Hare Krishna is a religion that fascinates and captures.

He explained that Hare Krishna worships Krishna, the one god. Krishna is generally referred to as “lord”. He said that Vishnu is a great god as well, if I remember correctly an avatar or aspect of Krishna, but according to some Sanskrit interpretations (there are obviously over 600 of them!), Krishna himself said that he is the creator of everything, as well as the end. One thing which surprised me was that Hare Krishna had a great focus on the individual rather than being holistic, which I didn’t expect considering that it’s a sect (here used to refer a branch of a main religion) of Hinduism, and I know that Hinduism puts a great focus on a holistic cosmology. He explained that Hare Krishna has a holistic view too, but the main goal is to create your own individuality so you can finally meet Krishna as a person. There are thus different kinds of stages that occur in the afterlife where you will either retain your individuality or you won’t. Retaining your individuality was thus greater than becoming a part of Krishna, whereas I had thought it to be the opposite. In this regard Hare Krishna thus sounds very similar to Christianity in the personal relationship you are supposed to have with god, or at least attempt to have. Such activities as prayers (repeating certain phrases constantly for a certain amount of time) and performing yoga are all means to get closer to god or create a communication with god. I also asked our “lecturer” about who the first guru was (prophet/apostle in some kind of sense, although the term “guru” just means “teacher”), since Hare Krishna was started by a guru who taught created the Krishna movement in the West. In Hare Krishna, and other forms of Hinduism, there must be some kind of teacher because humans are imperfect and it is thus impossible for a human to suddenly one day just realize all the great mysteries of god. Here too I notice a similarity with Christianity. Gurus are thus needed to spread the knowledge and messages further to the coming generations. Here I had to ask him who the first guru was, since it’s an interesting question. I actually think they solved the problem pretty well, at least when comparing to Christianity. Our “lecturer” explained that the very first guru was Brahma (sp?), and he taught the humans about Krishna. Of course the disconnection is still there, as Brahma is considered a divine being, even though he has a material body. In such a sense Brahma is in fact very similar to Jesus, who too, was sent to Earth to teach the word of god but at the same time being god in flesh. Now that I am writing about it, I forgot to ask if Hare Krishna consider all other deities to be mere parts of Krishna or whether they are entities of their own, but this is certainly an interesting aspect which should be explored further, although maybe not today. I do however know that there is some dispute among the academics whether Hinduism as an official religion should be considered polytheistic or monotheistic. At least the Brahma solution is better than “being inspired by god” or such nonsense. Even if god inspires us, and there is certainly proof that our beliefs in god at least can, it still doesn’t solve the problem that humans are imperfect and thus everything we do will be imperfect. Our “lecturer” did however seem to believe in some kind of perfect spirituality, where one reaches such a spiritual insight that it can be considered perfect to those who do not understand it. The guru who started the Hare Krishna movement was considered such a person for example. Therefore I suppose that it is logical in such a sense that a being such as Brahma can teach humans to reach such spiritual state of perfection that they too can become gurus.

As the “conversation” continued, it was unavoidable that we would eventually be touching such subjects as women’s rights and how women are treated in India and inside the Hare Krishna movement. It was explained that there have been female gurus, but they were no modern ones that our “lecturer” knew of that existed today, and not within the Hare Krishna movement, but there had been one 400 years ago. He further explained that women were never asked to take upon such a position, but when they wanted to no one stopped them. This was slightly surprising as well considering how patriarchal India is still today, even though it’s changing and has been changing rather rapidly throughout the past years. Within the Catholic Church female priests are forbidden and even in Sweden which is considered one of the most equal countries in the world, some male priests frown upon female priests. The “conversation” then went onto discussing the polygamy versus monogamy issue, and what view the Hare Krishna movement has on taking many wives. Our “lecturer” explained that it’s very uncommon for men to marry more than one woman today, but it happens often in the more rural parts of India, where having many wives might even symbolize a man’s social status. The more wives a man can afford to sustain the higher social status he has. Generally speaking though, no one’s looking down upon a man if he takes more than one wife, but the question is whether he can afford to be married to more than one. Naturally children were brought up after that. Hare Krishna believes that a parent should teach their children to be as good citizens as possible, and this is in fact the only reason why a member of Hare Krishna would have children, and thus didn’t fit too well with me. While I can understand that a member of Hare Krishna may consider their way of life to be the best one, and there are certainly aspects that I don’t mind at least, I do not agree with teaching a child that their way of living would naturally be the best one. However, our “lecturer” also said that it is not a failure for a parent if the child doesn’t follow the way of Krishna but takes a different path, and almost retorted to something like “god’s way is mysterious”. He didn’t express it in such a sense, but that our consciousness together with karma can more or less influence our lives both directly and indirectly. This also includes the religion or lack thereof we may follow.

At this point I had to ask what he thought about other religious beliefs or even making up your own, or what it meant to lead a “pious” life but yet not worship any god. To that he retorted, loosely quoted from memory, “that it’s like a road with many mailboxes, where some never received any mail to pick up”. He thus seemed to believe that some religions (most probably the ones he knew of and which shared similar ideas to his own) have more legitimacy than others. Some religions don’t worship any gods, Shinto being a more well-known example, but on the other hand, is it important if there would be some “answer” on the other side if you aren’t expecting any? Atheism and humanism comes to mind. I wasn’t asking it straight out because I didn’t think of formulating it in such a way, but I was of course thinking of the morality issue that many Christians throw around with in atheist/Christian discussions. I do think that he did believe that people can still lead pious lives though, without actually believing. There was no patronizing or threats such as “…but this will happen when you die!” sort of deal, just a simple answer that if you aren’t expecting anything of the religious or metaphysical nature, then probably nothing will happen. I think this is very interesting because it shows how important it may be for us to actually believe without there being anything to necessarily believe in. The belief itself is somehow more important than the worship, and I do believe it still boils down to what ways that works for each individuals that can help them to their self-empowerment, which I wrote about in a previous article here at the ACP. One of my classmates asked him whether he would’ve picked another religion, would it have been introduced to him in another environment, but she also said that he had answered it already in that he thought that Hare Krishna had all the right answers (that fit with him). But what I disagreed with here is that ultimately he believed that there must be some great divine authority that carries the knowledge over to humanity. We are ourselves unable to form our own answers to our existence. I do not believe in authorities, and people who know me well will probably also know that I like to form my own answers, not be given any. This is very true when it comes to my “spiritual” beliefs as well, as I do not share any ideas that move into the metaphysical and even if metaphysics would be true, I also ultimately believe that metaphysics is merely physics. I also do not share the sentiment that there would be a great divine being that controls all. I suppose that for some people it might give them relief knowing that they are not in control of everything and thus the cause of every action they take, in a way becomes some kind of excuse or crutch to say that “well, at least it wasn’t my fault it happened this way it happened”. I believe I am in control of my own life in that I can directly affect the world around me according the actions I take, or for the actions I choose not to for the matter. The free will versus causality is a tricky question. While I believe in free will in such a sense that I believe that we are free to decide our actions to a certain extent by becoming aware of our options, we are also controlled by causality because we are all part of a causal flow. When I feel hungry I feel hungry because my stomach just sent information to my brain that it’s empty, so my brain generates some signal substances that makes me feel hungry, but I at that moment I also got the option to eat and not eat, or if looking back into a previous moment in time, I could’ve eaten later to avoid becoming hungry, since I can calculate the causal flow that I will become hungry at a certain point. Eating before that point will thus change the causal flow. However, I am digressing; this is about my study visit at the Hare Krishna, not about the problems with Cartesian dualism.

Since I am already on the free will versus causality, Hare Krishna shares some peculiar ideas on the subject matter. First of all, every human being has a consciousness. It is something we can learn to control with increasing spiritual awareness. Our consciousness is thus similar to our normal mental processes and Descartes’ formulation “cogito, ergo sum” comes to mind, in a very literary sense. This is an idea strongly shared within Hare Krishna, and is also reflected in such terms as “civilized animals”. I can either learn to control my consciousness and become closer to god by doing so (read leading an ascetic and pious life) or I can be like an animal and merely act on my instincts. Consciousness is thus something that we can control with our “free wills”, and it may even be able to affect the environment around us. An example was when one of my classmates asked if our “lecturer” believed in Astrology, and he said he did, although “99% are fake”. He told us a story about one of his father’s coworkers who got his fate read by a local Astrologist whom he claimed was good at reading when people had bad luck. So this coworker got his fate read, and the Astrologist said that on a certain Monday he would be hurt by a very sharp object. So the coworker refused to go outside on that Monday, hoping that by limiting his movement that day he would reduce the risk of getting hurt. However, he had forgotten the antlers of a deer that hang on the wall above the sofa he had decided to sit in, and the antlers fell down and penetrated his chest. To this my classmate retorted that it could’ve as well actually been his consciousness that had been so focused on not getting hurt by this sharp object this very day that he actually got hurt. So in a way it’s like cognitive psychology where they speak about self-fulfilling prophecies. If you think something bad will happen, something bad will in fact happen because you will unconsciously expose yourself to such risks and may even cause them yourself without being aware that you are doing so. Then lastly there is karma. Most people are probably accustomed with the term that if we do good actions, we get good karma and if we do bad actions then we get bad karma. Depending on what kind of karma we have, it will also affect the environment around us. Karma also accumulates among a group of people so if a group of people do a lot of bad actions, the karma within that group will be generally bad. Karma is some kind of higher power of justice. If a person leads a very pious life but goes through many struggles, he or she may ultimately be rewarded thanks to karma; similarly, a person who leads a bad life might get punished. At this point asking about Haiti felt very natural, knowing that some Christian groups are so avid exclaiming that the earthquake in fact was caused by the god as punishment because of the Haiti people being so sinless or some equally silly nonsense. To this our “lecturer” explained that there are two things that can cause an earthquake. There are some demigods that control such things as the weather, and thus naturally also earthquakes, but earthquakes can also be caused by too much accumulated bad karma. I do not know which answer he believed was the right one here, but I felt he was treading very carefully in this matter considering how touchy the subject is, hence the vague answer.

At this point however, my two hours were up and we had to leave. It had been an interesting evening and I am really looking forward to the Scientology study visit in two weeks.

Preface

This article will deal with the ideology of positivism, rationalism and Karl Popper’s idea of good science. It will also further deal with why “Praying for person X made person X well from ailment Y” is not being a good form of science, but pseudoscience at best, particularly when presented in a scientific manner.

Definitions

Postivism is a scientific idelogy that we can only produce good science with the help of empirical data, most notably, by gathering facts. Is something not a fact, then we cannot consider it to be a positivist claim. So if I make a statement that the earth is flat when we have clearly observed that the earth isn’t, it is a false statement simply because it is not based on empirical evidence and because it is not a given fact. If I however say that the earth is round, it is a good positivt claim because we have good supoprting evidence that the earth is round and people have observed it as such, we can thus consider it a fact and the statement to be true.

Rationalism is a specific scientific ideology in turn developed by Karl Popper, stemming from the idea of positivism. Karl Popper’s goal with developing rationalism was to first of all debunk pseudoscience, secondly to set up a border when something can be considered good science and when it isn’t. Karl Popper defined good rationalist science as “finding faults in the problemsolving”* and “by speaking to thinking and experience rather than to moods and emotion”*.1

So the biggest difference between positivism and rationalism lies in that positivism does not necessarily change a theory when the empirical data does not fully support it, but may use help-theses, something Karl Popper despised. Rationalism then, is the complete reforming of a theory when new data is found, or when the theory is incapable of explaining the current data properly without using help-theses which are applied ad hoc.

The good positivist or rationalist science

Then how would positivist or rationalist science look like? A positivist would try to study the empirical data as good as possible and then make factual statements about those, a rationalist would look at the same empirical data but is more interested in being critical to how to explain the data and finding faults in this explanation while at the same time trying to appeal to logic and experience rather than that of emotion. This brings us to the main point, namely why praying, as evidence for the existence of god, is not evidence and why it is not scientific.

Example

One of the most common stories you hear from Christians as evidence for god is when they make a statement that praying works and they’ve seen it. Now, let’s assume ourselves in the role of a Christian practioneer who is praying for a relative being seriously ill, to the point where this illness is endangering this person’s life. As a good Christian, we are praying every day for this relative to become better, but the doctor’s treatment seems to be negative. Instead this person seems to become more ill than well. Suddenly though, there is a turn of events, without any seemingly explainable cause, the relative is cured from the illness and our conclusion must be that it was the work of god. Or wait, is it really?

A positivist would not accept this explaination, because obviously the empirical data has not been studied enough. The primary data here being our now cured relative, and why this relative all of sudden became better when it seemed that the medication made no difference. There are many factors to consider, such as our relative’s physiology. Maybe our relative really didn’t need any medication, because this person’s physiology worked in such a way that this person was supposed to overcome this illness regardless. Maybe the doctors gave this person the wrong medication. This cannot be outruled either. Doctors are human and humans make errors. The doctors gave our relative the wrong diagnosis and thus also the wrong treatment. A variant of the previous point, but happens all the time as well. A positivist would then start to debunk these theses by investigating the empirical data related to them, such as taking blood samples from the relative and studying them, or asking the doctors whether they changed the medication or if they believe they missdiagnosed the relative.

A rationalist would of course also do the above, but would be even more interested to see if we can trace any fault of logic in the original reasoning. It seems we can find quite a few of them. First of all, we cannot be certain god exists, as we have no evidence for this. Not necessarily using Occham’s Razor here, but a rationalist would examine the claim how probable it would be that god intervened and did so because of our prayers. Secondly, we also have the issue of prayers themselves. In the Bible it states that god knows everything, god is omniscient. Would it not be enough then to just think that we want to save our relative for god to respond to such a need? God would know even without having us praying, thus, it actually seems more logical that it was not the praying that was the actual cause. Thirdly though, and probably the greatest issue with this example is the emotional part of the argument. A religious person would of course want to believe it was god, it speaks that the religious person’s needs. It has thus an emotional appeal, rather than it being rational. So while a religious person may be overlooking some logical inconsistencies in their problemsolving when it comes to such statements as “My prayers saved my relative from dying”, the reason why they would believe such a statement is more because of the emotional appeal, they want it to be true, not necessarily because it is true. So when Christians make statements like these, they are not scientific in their approach, because they overlook great many faults in their reasoning.

Legend
* – My translation

Sources
Vår Tids Filosofi, Part 2

Swedish political right extremist party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) have managed to give rise to more controversy more than gaining power among the voters. Their leader, Jimmie Åkesson, published a very controversial debate article yesterday in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (The Evening Paper) where he makes various claims about Muslims being the new threat to the Swedish welfare system.

You can read the article on this site both as a Swedish extract and with a Google translation.

It is clear that Åkesson use sweeping statements and hyperboles, such as claiming that Europe will have the highest rape statistics in the world, and that Muslim men will be overrepresented. This is nothing new and basically just fear-mongering, the truth remains that most rapes today are done by white middle-class men no one would expect to be rapists, and neither do they, hence the as usual complete denial. A lot of men who are white and belong to the middle-class are never convicted simply because the judges believed them more, only for the pure reasons that they were white middle-class men. We do not perceive them of being capable of raping, even when there is overwhelming evidence presented. The reason why is simply of what Åkesson just expressed; we rather believe in the dark ambusher coming from an Arab country, spying on lone women at night hiding in a bush near a parkway, just ready to attack.

I live in a pretty Muslim-dense part of my town, and there is a local store that sell Halal meat. I can’t really say it bothered me more than I think it is unethical to drain an animal of blood while it is still alive, as I consider it a form of animal cruelty. Neither have I never felt unsafe when walking alone at night in my area. A lot of children’s families live here, the worst thing I usually experience are teenagers who drive around with their vespas in the middle of the night. I have also yet to meet a person who was clearly mean to me. All of the people I’ve spoken to are nice, such as the guy who sits at the counter in the previously mentioned store that sell Halal meat.

Instead of actually explaining how he would like to proceed to solve the issues with identitiy crisis among second- and third generation immigrants, Åkesson retorts to fear-mongering tactics. What’s worse is the huge support SD have started to gain among the general population, so obviously it is working. I wish people were less blind and could actually see that Åkesson offers NOTHING to solve the problem, he just makes statement after statement of what is wrong. That is not a solution, just empty promises. So what is Åkesson going to do once he get to power? Kick out all immigrants from Sweden? That is obviously not going to work, no matter how you look at it. One reason is that the Swedish birthrate is too low.

I should add that sually any identity to the grandparents’ country is lost at the third generation as they become completely immersed within their “host” country, so I am not sure what kind of statistics Åkesson took part of, but it’s very contradictory to what I’ve learnt as an anthropology student. So I don’t see why Åkesson is quite worried. Yes, angsty teenagers in the surburbs are a problem, but they aren’t angsty because they are Muslims, they are angsty because the politicians do nothing to improve their situation and ultimately the become marginalized from society! One would expect our politicians to learn that it doesn’t work to dump immigrants on one dense place. Philipe Burgois’ book In Search of Respect is a perfect example of what will happen in Sweden in the future if we don’t try to spend money to improve the situation.

Lastly, there are a lot of claims made about what is Swedish, but Åkesson nor anyone from SD never offer any form of explanation of what they mean what being Swedish is. Am I Swedish for having a Swedish name and a Swedish personal number and for considering myself part Swedish? Or am I too, an evil immigrant here to poison the country and the so called Swedish culture because of my Korean heritage? I do not deny my Korean heritage and I consider myself just as much Korean as I consider myself Swedish. I just so happened to have a Swedish name that people mention me as and to speak Swedish fluently. It should be said that my Korean name is actually a part of my whole name, only the surname is left out for reasons I don’t know, but I think it was inconvenient for my parents to name me Fridh Kim or any variant of it, since they were married and it would be troublesome legally I suppose.

If there is anything that worries me right now when it comes to Swedish politics it’s if SD would get into the parliament. I am very worried over what will happen with the current Swedish democracy and freedom of speech. I do not deny Åkesson’s right to voice his opinions, but I do deny him the right to get into the Swedish parliament and I will actively do so by refusing to vote for him and his party. Any person who only argues for the right for his own freedom of speech and his own social rights only fool himself if he claims to support a democratic society where everybody is equal.

I do agree with Åkesson that our current immigration is a huge issue and that we have yet to learn how to manage to deal with all the angsty teenagers living in the suburbs. Clearly what our politicans are currently doing isn’t working, but this also includes Åkesson and his SD! I admit that one of the reasons why I want to become a scientist within the anthropological field is so I can go out in the field and actually gather FACTS so maybe they’ll start doing something USEFUL and TANGIBLE. I do want to be able to influence our politicians on a greater scale than what I am currently able of just being a normal citizen with an opinion.

It should also be noted that SD got strong Christian roots (hahahahahahaha!), as if I’d ever cast my vote for such a retarded party that make claims of how dangerous Islam is and that the Koran is so dogmatic and then come running making such weak claims that “but at least we got the NT who make claims about turning the other cheek!”. Yeah, right, like that’s exactly what you are doing Åkesson? Like referring to the NT ever stopped Christianity from still oppressing our society and still does here in the West. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. Of course, Åkesson wouldn’t define his homophobia as much as oppressing, just that the Bible says so and therefore it is right. Now, maybe Åkesson should start looking at himself first and the claims he and his party make regarding domatism, then maybe they got the right to critize Islam properly.

Such fucking idiocy. I wish people could actually see that Åkesson is just a big fucking hypocrite and if I could, I would smother him where he stands with my soceress’ fire ball. In fact, I wish we could tear down our whole current political system and abdicate all our active politicians. They are very good at talking and avoiding questions, very bad at actually making the changes they always claim they are aiming for.

I had a lecture the other week when one of my teachers came to talk about his fieldwork he conducted on West Java, studying the (religious) meaning of fasting. Java’s biggest religion is Islam, so thus, one would conclude that the ritual of fasting bears great importance in the daily lives of the Java people. Once my teacher started to investigate what fasting truly is however, it turned out that fasting wasn’t just a religious rite practiced during certain holidays such as Ramadan, but students said to him that they would fast a couple of days before an important exam, or that if they were going to an interview for a job they really wanted, they would fast before as well. Obviously, fasting isn’t just a religious expression, although religious leaders put great emphasis that fasting should only be performed. Then what is fasting? Fasting is in its simplest form an expression to control the body, that is, what goes and and what comes out. In anthropology we may call these things substances. Food may be considered a specific form of substance, and by fasting, a person can control what form of food they eat and don’t. It thus requires some kind of self-control of the body. But why the importance to control the physical body? I didn’t think much more about it then, until I read some posts here on the Anti-Christian Phenomenon Website, and I realized that this is a very common reoccuring theme in most world religions. Judaism may advocate for ascetism, and so do more extreme variants of Hinduism. In Christianity the step is taken even further and there is a whole system built around the idea of sin, which basically is a guideline of what is accepted behavior in how to control the mind and body. One explanation can be that if one is able to control one’s body, then one is also able to control the mind, and the logical conclusion would be that one will naturally lead a more healthy and happy life when being able to muster this kind of self-control.

The idea is far from new, and we may even find notions of this in other philosophical systems that may seem completely unrelated to religion at all. Friedrich Nietzsche spoke about his concept of the übermensch, the super human, and that we can only become truly free and be able to take control of our own lives once we discard such notions as religion. In the humanist movement a less metaphorical term is used, and it is simply just called empowerment. Once again, by discarding such things as religion can we become truly free and take control of our own lives. In the Enlightenment movement one could only become truly free by accepting rationality and common sense. Through logic and reason alone are we capable of realizing our own individual freedom. In Taoism, we can only become truly free by understanding our own importance in a holistic system, and realizing that it is not about I, the subject, but about we, as a single entity. The system in Taosim in how we can achieve true balance with the world is also very intricate, and advocate strong ideas of how to act and behave in different situations.

Maybe it is easier to understand why some people may turn to religion in the light of being an excuse to find self-empowerment which they alone failed in achieving without an intricate system such as religion with clear rules to follow in how such empowerment can be reached. I will not try to go into and debate as to why self-empowerment may be so intrinsically important to human beings, and why we ultimately still like to believe in the idea of our own prsonal freedom and power to achieve things we want to achieve, nor is it in the scope or interest of this website, but if religion offers a possibility to reach such self-empowerment, then it has surely succeeded. With that said, obviously religion is not for everybody, as shown with my examples of philosophical movements and ideas that are unrelated to religion and at times even strongly opposed such a notion, so maybe ultimately the reason why some people may seem to change religious affiliations as if they were changing clothes may lie in that the system they just joined simply wasn’t the way for them to achieve this empowerment within, may it be for philosophical or other reasons. For example, I really don’t find the notion attractive of living an ascetic life or fast once a year for a month, but if making a claim that my non-religious stance has helped to make me feel that I am in control of my own life, I will answer honestly that yes, I do believe so. I am not going to deny that religion ultimately is a powerful tool when it comes to finding self-empowerment, if it wasn’t, I am sure a lot less would be religious than what we are currently seeing today, the problem is of course all the other ideas that religion imposes that I cannot as easily accept as something intrinsically good, and if religion truly is representing a system for self-empowerment, maybe it would be time to develop something new that does not include ideas of human rights 2000 years ago.

Just a quick article from me today. Swedish newspaper Metro had a small article in the Gothenburg version this morning about how the Swedish organization JO (Justitieombudsmannen), which is a political organ supposed to function as a report system for citizens, has now postulated that it was wrong to take down pictures of Satan pooping on a cruxified Jesus at a punk rock festival in the town of Linköping.

It can also be noted that the Autotune version of Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking has now gained such popularity that it was mentioned on Nanok!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

Embedding fails.

As I am studying the Greek philosophers right now, there is one interesting question regarding Plato. I may just be rambling and be way off, but I thought it might be worthwhile writing it down nevertheless. To understand why, I will first explain what ideas Plato formulated:

Plato stated that there are basically two realities: one which we can sense with our 5 senses, and one which is objective and is independent to the reality which we can actually sense. This reality is also said to be timeless and cannot change. For sake of easy reference, this objective world will from now be called O, whereas the material reality that we can study will be called M. Plato’s main idea is that M is a shadow of O, because M constitutes of many attributes that makes it “weak” or “lesser” in terms of existence, such as being finite, as compared to O.

Now, I thought that O vs M is a good analogy to ask, what if we compare O to god? I don’t think this idea is very farfetched in theory, because there are actually many similarities between the Christian god and O, most notably that:

- M is a reflection of O
- O is supposed to not be able to change in nature and is timeless
- O exists independently of M

If switching the word O with god, this would happen:

- M is a reflection of god (which can be interpreted as M is god’s creation)
- God cannot change in nature and is timeless
- God exists independently of M

Now, there are however a few flaws in Plato’s theory, most notably the one about independence. Because if O exists independently of M, then how can we know for certain that M is merely a reflection of O? We simply cannot know what O is, because O is supposed to be seperate of M. We cannot study O at all.

This argument is strikingly similar to the argument that Christians keep repeating, except that they are contradicting themselves, because:

1) Christians claim that god exists in another realm of existence outside the material world and can thus not be interacted with or studied
2) Christians claim they have had personal experiences with god, such as being told something by god, or felt a divine presence

But 1) and 2) are almost mutually exclusive because:

3) Christians also claim that we cannot understand or know god

So if 1) is true, then 2) cannot be true, because how can they know it was god if they also at the same time claim 3)? So 2) is actually a contradiction to 1) and 3), because even if they claim to know that was indeed god, we simply cannot know.

While I am not trying to argue for some kind of extreme skepticism here, at least I think that using Plato’s theory as an analogy shows that Christians can never know for a certainty that god indeed exists, and if they claim they do they are contradicting themselves. We cannot logically prove whether god’s existence is true or false, particularly if using a similar argument like that of Plato’s, but I don’t think that is what is important, but rather which I have shown here. Due to logical uncertainty, I think any religious person should not be so quick rushing at saying “goddidit” or “it was god, I know it”, because according to this, how can they can truly know? It could’ve as well been Satan or any other divine being. It is exactly that kind of naïvety that they often claim anti-religious for doing, when the anti-religious do something they do not personally agree with, (“you follow Satan but you don’t know it”), but I think here I have evidence for that they themselves shouldn’t be so certain of god’s existence, or they are as hypocricial as they claim others to be.

An acquaintance of mine showed me this site, which I initially thought would be atheist propaganda, and I had no idea it was launched by the Humanist movement. When you enter the site, you are prompted to do a test to see how religious you are, so I did. Unfortunately the whole site is in Swedish, for those non-Swedes, but anyway. The test didn’t take long, somewhere between 5-10 minutes, depending on the effort and thinking you put into each answer. I suppose the test itself wasn’t all that bad, although some questions were extreme polarized, where even I, who don’t believe in god at all, found it hard to sometimes answer. For example, one question was formulated such as it asked whether you believed that free will exists, or whether your actions are controlled by something else, god or otherwise. While I do believe in free will as I believe that absolute determinism is flawed, what if you believe free will is an illusion but don’t believe in god? At the start of the test, you also get to fill out what rituals, holidays and other religious celebrations you celebrate with religious origin. Of course, I filled out that I celebrate Easter and Christmas, just like many other people do. But I don’t celebrate out of my belief in Jesus Christ, I celebrate it so I can gather with my family and have some good time together.

Anyway, at the end of the test I received the answer that I was not religious at all, and that religion did not control any part of my everyday life. How the test turned out if you say, believed in god and believed that homosexuals are not allowed to marry I don’t know, but the answer was obvious: either you were religious or you weren’t. And this is where I reacted as well. How can the humanists attack the religious people, and stereotype them to such a degree that they all sound like they were extreme fundamentalists? This was my very first contact with the humanist movement, and it certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, and I got sorely disappointed with their approach.

So, what about the humanist movement? The humanist movement is pro secularism, that is, seperation of church and state, and aggressively work for it to remain so. So far so good, I don’t really see this a bad thing in itself. Humanists also believe in the empowerment of the human being, and that is one of the reasons why I disagree with humanism. It focuses too much on human life, and it puts the human into the center of the universe. While I agree that human empowerment is much better than believing in a skydaddy to rely onto, I can’t quite agree with something that almost sounds derivated from Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch either, I care too much about the other lifeforms we must co-exist with to say that my human life is more important any other lifeform. Being a humanist implies you believe in the strength of a human being, and while I am sure many people would hate me for using the word faith here, it is irrational faith that make people believe humans are more important than what they are. Nihilistic as I am, I cannot understand how a group of people can forget how little their lives matter to the vast universe, or the earth itself. Another problem I got with the humanist movement is that it’s an organizaton, it’s a group. And it’s becoming almost as bad as the religions they seem to love attacking. Why?

First of all, I will outline the basic definitions of what religion is in an anthropological definition, and even more so fundamentalism, which does not necessarily encompass the belief in a supreme being at all:

- Shared belief system (the belief that the human being is stronger without the belief in god)
- Strict rules or values/dogma (Seperation of church and state, adopted liberalistic ethics. Anyone deviating from these ideas would most likely become ostracized from the group)
- It is an organization with a leader to unite the group members

In addition, to officially be counted as a humanist, you need to pay a fee, just like Christians here in Sweden pay a fee to the Church of Sweden if they are members. Of course, one can be a member without paying a fee, but not officially. Thus far, including propaganda sites like the one I provided at the start of this post and very aggressive methods where they rather seem to be attacking the religious than the religious organizations, it’s as if the humanist movement is becoming a religion itself, and a fundamental one to add. I completely respect their wishes to seperate the church and state in countries where they are not, or to let the church and state remain seperated in countries where they already have been, but when they attack the religious people instead of the religious movements? That’s like shooting themselves in the foot and furthermore, they give atheists bad names! They reinforce the idea that atheists hate religion, and that’s the least rational atheists want.

No, there are many ways you can criticize religion and seperate it from church and state without attacking its believers. Such as stop addressing people personally and address the name of the religious organizations, like the Church of Sweden, or the Pentacostals. It’s really sad, all in all, that they are becoming the thing they so strongly oppose.

But mostly a fun critique against the militant activist.

[youtube]A3joOubvzzY[/youtube]

I did enjoy the debate, and just shows how insecure many Christians are in their beliefs when someone challenges them.

I wrote this in Kriegsphilosophie in relation to my views about marriage:

Ultimately I don’t believe in love, I believe in intelligence. For me, it is not the love that makes me love a person so to speak, it’s the intelligence found inside. A majority of Westerners still focus on that love is required to love in a relationship. That I happened to love someone is more of a side-effect of what I found inside a person, rather than love itself.

I guess what I really want to say is that I am aiming a social critique against the notion of how we view love. A lot of people say, “it’s nice to love”, but is it really the love we should be living for? Love, just like marriage, is just a symbol given a meaning, but I think a human being can be meaningful without symbols.

And I thought I could challenge some Christians with their view about love as a symbol as well, if you really read what I said carefully.

Love has no meaning outside a cultural context. Humans give it an instrinsic meaning because we believe in its meaning. For an animal, love is equal to air, simply because an animal cannot understand the symbolic meaning humans attach to love in their respective cultures.

If we also look at how Christians actually behave to their countrymen, it also turns out that the person they are projecting their love to is rather secondary. It rather seems to be the communal notion of love that is important than actually loving people, where the persons to whom you are projecting the love to are more important then the love you are projecting. That means that love itself becomes redundant as a symbolic carrier, and it would furthermore mean that you are more genuinely interested to those you are talking to instead of “spreading love”, and telling people how much “you love”. Because it seems what you are really after are just people who too, share this view inside a community, so in reality, it at least feels like you don’t really care about the people at all as long you have an agreement about the “love” itself.

This also holds very true in regards of what I have previously experienced. Remember, this is a challenge, not necessarily a claim I made to attack anyone or anyone’s beliefs.

I will quote some things quickly and reply, not all of it.

“In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did it all come from?”

I am more interested in why this bugs people as a whole. I am a follower of the Big Bounce theory, just like db0. In such a case, one can argue there was no real beginning since it’s cyclical. It’s like watching a snake biting it’s own tail, you cannot tell where it begins and where it ends because they are interconnected. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really bug me at all that we cannot fully tell the creation of our universe. It is an interesting field of research but it will not change my life if we would find testifiable proof whether a creator exists or not.

“What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?”

Once again, I am fine with not knowing even though I know some people are working on it. I think there is a major difference in being “satisfied finding an answer” in any answer given than actually trying to find a REAL answer. Obviously most religious people belong to the former, scientists to the latter.

“What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these “languages of reality” to so elegantly describe and interact with it?”

Over time our brain simply developed to manage more abstractions; with that we could develop a better sense of logic and in addition to that mathematical skills, since both require abstract thinking. So at this point it’s all about evolution and humans being finely tuned as db0 said to just simply work this way, because it turned out it was the best method for us to survive in our current evironment (maybe too good, I should add).

“Do you deny objective morality; that the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler is not just a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? If not, then how do you ground morality; how do you explain where it came from and why we ought to be moral tomorrow?”

I do, since your so called “objective morals” are all based within the society you happened to currently live in. So Muslims living in extremist Muslim parts of the world might consider an eye for an eye a better moral method while a second generation Muslim living in Sweden might be propagating for women’s rights and that it does not impede on their rights wearing a veil. A Westerner in general might shudder at the idea that we should cut off the hand who has committed theft, as clearly stated in the Quran, but lest not forget that there are quite a few atrocious comments within the Old Testament that Christians are equally good at denying (moral laws written in a society existing 2000 years ago), such as beating your children if they don’t obey their parents, moral laws that simply don’t fit into today’s modern humanitarian views. So no, objective morals do not exist, simply put, since all your moral stems stem from the society you live in.

“Skeptics often bring up the “problem of evil” as evidence against God, i.e., if there is a good and all-powerful God, then why is there evil in the world.
Do you think that this is a valid objection? If so, are you admitting that there is evil in the world? What is “evil,” and do you not admit its opposite: “good?”
The problem of evil objection only makes sense if such things as good and evil are objectively real, not just preference statements.”

Of course it’s a good counterargument since the Bible explicitly said that God is x of this, one including being omni-benevolent. If God then is all good, then there is a logical paradox if evil still exists, as originally outlined by Epicurus (I will not bother quoting since it’s probably overquoted as it is).

So then it basically rounds down to whether you believe evil exists at all, and it doesn’t. Referring back to the previous argumentation about objective morals, evil is very interconnected. 1500 years ago Catholic Romans found it very justifiable to treat pagans and heathens like trash; even their own slaves who may be fellow Christians. This is something most Christians today would still look upon as an evil act since the Bible speaks for turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor. So our very idea of what is evil has changed throughout history itself; it was once not an evil or immoral act to treat women badly but it is today, and now Christian women in particular are even speaking for the equality of the genders as proposed by the Bible, which is utter complete bullshit if someone has actually studied the issue a little bit further than the statements that “god loves everyone” (such as a woman being stoned to death if she is found to commit aldultery, yet the man in a similar situation “gets away with it”). It is evident there is a major difference in treatment between women and men both in the Old and the New Testament, and that women are in general of lesser worth, less spiritually pure, indirectly pointing to the cause of this “taint” lies in their monthly periods.

I don’t find it evil if a majority of the human race would be killed off, would you? The fact we may hold different moral views about this matter evidently speaks for that objective evil does not exist, and when you turn my argument against me and says that I am evil, you are very much projecting a subjective point of view, and your argument thus fails.

“Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is “suicide?” What values and purpose will you instill in your children? Will you be honest with them, or will you borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint?”

I don’t live for my own sake, I live for enjoyment, purely. If I don’t enjoy my life, of course suicide is the other option. I don’t have a reason at all for existing or living. I will live as long there is great food to eat, great friends to meet and what other physical or mental pleasure you can imagine. Yes, I live for pleasure, don’t we all? If we don’t enjoy our lives we generally don’t want to continue living. I will not instill any child with a purpose if I now would have children (at this point in my life I find it very doubtful), so the question itself is a non-issue. I will not direct, but I will be there as a GUIDE, when this person is looking for answers I will answer them in my way but still leave the question open. Better to keep up with the possibilities than rejecting the alternatives. Of course I will be honest; anything else is intellectual dishonest from my regard and if that happens I will shoot myself in the foot. When I was a kid my father indirectly encouraged me to study facts and the world itself and even at a young age I had a thirst for wisdom and I preferred watching a documentary about animals or nature over a cartoon movie. If anything, this is a mentality I hope to instill, that no answer is given until we search for one.

“Are you prepared to accept the idea that no one is really morally responsible for their bad behavior and, conversely, that virtuous behavior is not commendable? In what way will you seek to convince me that I am really not a conscious and self-aware being; that it is just a complex biochemical illusion? Can you accept that computer programs may one day be just as much “persons” as you, yourself?”

Of course I am, and many things which may be considered virtuous are for me despisable ideas of how to lead a human life. How about this person trying to present such an exeggerated ethos? What exactly would make you a better person because you happen to take care of a lot of kids? Nothing. It’s all just a silly cultural idea that taking care of children and in general being a caretaker makes you a better person, especially if you are a woman. As for you not being a self-aware and conscious being, that’s rediculous. What has it got to do with ideas of virtue vs bad behavior? Of course you are self-aware and conscious about your existence, or you wouldn’t ask that question to begin with. You already have your set of morals and ideas of what is being virtuous behavior and what isn’t. Some of it is instilled from our parents and other people from your environment, some of it is instilled by general culture by itself. I inherently believe that we can make personal choices, but the issue is rather whether you are willing to do so. As for AI, there’s still a long way to go. Maybe some day in the future we will have such a complex computer mechanism that allows it to behave just like a human, but we don’t today. I am open for the possibility but I find it pointless to talk about it before we are there.

“Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings. While some of these are certainly spurious or not
well documented, others have reasonable experimental support. In addition to this, humans seem to be incurably religious; the idea of God and the spiritual is deeply entrenched in the human psyche, if not in its actual experience.
What are we to make of all this? If man is simply an adapted biological organism, then how is it that we did not manage to adapt to our natural environment in this area – why are we not “naturalists” rather than theists? Can’t any of this be a hint toward reality, or must we think that the bulk of humanity flirts with insanity?”

Pretty sure this man can answer that question better than I can.